Decision: Must reduce emissions – but the US may refuse

TT

Publicerad 11.47

           

           

          A holiday hotel in Port Vila in Vanuatu is partially underwater after several cyclones and an                        earthquake. The picture is from last year. Vanuatu was behind a resolution on climate responsibility            that the UN recently adopted.

          1 / 2Photo: Annika Hammerschlag/AP/TT

 

A new decision increases the pressure on countries to do more to prevent climate change. It could make it easier for affected countries and people to sue large emitters.

But no immediate changes are expected for the country that has emitted the most.

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution this week that confirms that countries must comply with their climate commitments – and by extension be held liable for damages if they neglect them.

– The main purpose of the resolution is actually to emphasize that states must comply with their obligations. What it emphasizes is that the states have a greater commitment than the Paris Agreement entails, says Jonas Ebbesson, professor of environmental law at Stockholm University.

“Important message”

The resolution is based on an opinion from the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ) last year, and confirms it. The extensive support could be significant at the UN climate summits, Ebbesson believes.

“It means a lot, especially politically, that the states confirm that they have a common ambition to phase out the net supply of greenhouse gases. In these times, when some states are backing down on their commitments and pursuing less active climate policies, this is an important message from the UN General Assembly.

The US also has climate obligations under international law, as is clear from the resolution, despite the fact that the country voted against it and has left the Paris Agreement. But nothing will happen automatically if the US refuses, according to Johanna Westeson, lawyer and researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).

– Will this lead to the US having to immediately change its climate policy? No, that's the really boring answer. But in the long term, it will become more and more unacceptable to pursue such an expansive emissions policy as the US, Russia and others are doing.

“No clear process”

Countries that violate the commitments may be required to pay damages, but it could also involve accepting climate refugees, according to Ebbesson.

– There is no clear process for how this should be done. This type of enforcement is often very difficult in international law, especially against large countries, he says.

Westeson believes that in the short term, the resolution mainly strengthens the possibilities in legal processes at the regional or national level, where, for example, groups of people hold companies or countries accountable – something we have seen several high-profile cases in recent years.

– It is important to be realistic and say that this is not a “quick fix”. But still, from my perspective as a lawyer, I want to point out that the world's most important court has spoken, and that an enormous majority of the world's states have backed it.